No table manners

It has been consistently proved that talks with militants are a futile exercise.

advertisement

Bhavna Vij-Aurora

March 25, 2010

ISSUE DATE: April 5, 2010

UPDATED: April 7, 2010 16:42 IST

Negotiation was described by someone as the art of getting what you want. But the problem the Government has faced till now is that it rarely knew what exactly it wanted, whether it was in engaging the Hurriyat Conference in Kashmir, the Gorkhas in West Bengal, the ULFA in Assam or the Maoists in Andhra Pradesh. Going on for over a decade, talks with most insurgent and militant groups have either headed nowhere or are deadlocked. The farcical Maoist response to the offer of talks too has failed to impress the government, considering the Andhra Pradesh government's sour experience with the People's War group (PWG) in 2004. Even poet and writer P. Varavara Rao, who negotiated on behalf of the Maoists, admitted to their using the ceasefire period for regrouping. However, internal security expert Ajai Sahni says the period of ceasefire was also used tactically by the state to penetrate the organisation, which ultimately helped the special anti-Naxal force, Greyhounds, to quell them.

Chidambaram with the NSCN(I-M) delegation led by Muivah (second from right)

Internal security experts and experienced negotiators believe that for any talks to succeed, there has to be clarity and willingness on both sides. Both need to be clear that the talks are not opportunistic but principled. Also, both need to be sure that they want a solution to the problem. Considering these prerequisites, the situation was not yet ripe for the Centre-Maoist talks. The Maoists were not under enough pressure to come to the negotiating table. Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said that it will happen only after their top leaders were either arrested or killed.

The Mizoram talks in the early 1980s, often quoted as a success story, came about only after the insurgents were completely broken down. Sahni said that what preceded the Mizo talks was a brutal military campaign. "The insurgents were broken before they came to the negotiating table, and they had little choice," he said. Only after the insurgent group was ready to lay down arms did the government take a generous view, and used talks as a mopping-up operation. Or else, they could be counter-productive and lead to more disruption and violence as in the case of Punjab, where the negotiations became a part of the problem.

The on-off talks with the Hurriyat have become exactly that. Started in 2004, they broke down soon after. In September, Home Minister P. Chidambaram decided to revive the dialogue, holding two rounds of secret talks with Chairperson Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, Abdul Gani Bhat and Bilal Lone. The negotiations hit a roadblock soon after as the news got leaked to the media. According to Sahni, however, there was no point in holding talks with the organisation which had lost its relevance and had been reduced to being a Pakistan proxy. "The Hurriyat did not deserve the privileged position of meeting the prime minister or the home minister," he says.

A delegation of the NSCN(I-M), the Naga insurgent group demanding "Nagalim" or Greater Nagaland, was however granted the privilege of meeting both of them earlier this year. Led by Thuingaleng Muivah, the delegation also held talks with the Centre's new interlocutor R.S. Pandey. Muivah again presented the NSCN's list of 30 demands, including sovereignty for Nagaland and unification of all Naga-dominated areas in neighbouring states into Nagalim. Pandey is believed to have conveyed to the Naga leaders that there was no possibility of sovereignty for Nagaland and talks could be held around the "grant of more autonomy". How long it takes for the dialogue to reach its logical conclusion was not a matter of concern to the government any more. "The leaders are getting old. It suits them to maintain status quo. They collect crores in taxes and get covert funding from the government, which in turn gets an excuse for not addressing the problem of governance," explains Sahni.

Where the outlawed United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) was concerned, Chidambaram had made it clear that the pressure on the outfit will be maintained despite the Government's willingness to hold talks. Jnanpith award-winner Indira Goswami had earlier mediated between the outfit and the government in 2005 but not much came out of the talks. However, Goswami told INDIA TODAY that some "boys'' had approached her and wanted her to resume the talks and that she had sought an appointment with Governor J.B. Patnaik with the ULFA offer. Sources in the Home Ministry say that not much was expected from the negotiations even this time because Pradip Gogoi and Ranjan Daimary, who had approached Goswami, had put the precondition that they wanted the release of ULFA chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa. For the Government, the real ULFA was represented by its chief Paresh Barua, who is believed to be in Myanmar.

The Gorkhaland issue also got a fresh lease of life after the demand for Telangana broke out in December. Pillai disclosed that the deal with Gorkha Janmukti Morcha was as good as sealed when Telangana happened. The outfit saw it as an opportunity and upped the ante again and now tripartite talks involving the party, the Centre and the West Bengal Government are back on the table.

Dead Ends on the Road to Peace

It's a long story of stalled talks, stretching from Nagas to Maoists

MAOISTSThere has been no development after the farcical exchange of phone numbers between the Home Ministry and the outlaws. The Centre says talks can happen only after they abjure violence unconditionally. Earlier attempts at talks by the Andhra government had failed in 2004.

ULFAAn earlier attempt to talk to the ULFAfailed in 2005. Some of their leaders have again sent feelers through mediator Indira Goswami with the condition that their chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa be released. The Centre, however, is not ready for the talks unless the offer comes from Paresh Barua, currently in Myanmar.

NAGASTalks with the NSCN(I-M) began in 1997. They have been deadlocked mainly over the demand for the creation of Nagalim by combining areas dominated by Nagas even in the adjoining states. The Government has appointed a new interlocutor after 11 years.

GORKHASTripartite talks with the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha and the West Bengal Government over the formation of a separate state of Gorkhaland were resumed in 2007, more than 20 years after the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council was formed. A breakthrough looked possible till the Telangana movement.

HURRIYAT CONFERENCEThe moderate faction has been talking off and on with the Centre since 2004, demanding the right to self-determination by the Kashmiris. Talks were stalemated since 2006 when it boycotted the PM's round table conference. Low key talks in progress since September.

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from